Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (279174)	3/8/2006 10:37:55 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571933

Better off now than under Saddam? Sure, because US taxpayers are spending 150 billion a year in Iraq. So the ones the pollsters can reach (nearby to the green zone) are thankful for American money. But if Iraq boils over into all-out civil war, they will be worse off. Right now, it's uncertain. More important, is the US better off with Iraq in Islamic mullahs' hands or Saddam's? Good question. We don't know the answer yet. Three years after Bush declared Mission Accomplished. Other polls have shown that almost half the Iraqis think it's OK to kill Americans, so what are we doing caring so much about how much better off the buggers are? They could care less about us.

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (279174)	3/9/2006 10:18:47 AM
From: Taro	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571933

The poll found 73 percent of those surveyed in the United States said Saddam is getting a fair trial No doubt at least as "fair" as the Nazis in Nuremberg. "I don't think he deserves a trial at all. In my opinion, it's a joke that we're going through the motions." The same argument no doubt would hold for Nuremberg. Maybe Stalin had a point when he suggested "we should rather shoot them on the spot". Most likely just as "fair" IMO. Taro